Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State at the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Defence, Deputy Peter Burke, to our rather belated meeting of the committee. We are keen to facilitate him and his officials. The Bill was referred to the committee on 15 February. We wish the Minister of State well in his new portfolio and assure him of the full co-operation of the committee in the context of the relationship between the Legislature and the Executive. We look forward to engaging with him, over the course of his tenure, on matters pertaining to the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Defence.

He might like to make a brief statement by way of outline.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach for his kind words. I look forward to working with the committee. This legislation has been in a state of genesis for a significant period. There is no standalone Act for Civil Defence and this will be modernising, cornerstone legislation to underpin and define it. Civil Defence has been operating under an Act of 1939, to which there have been a number of amendments over the years, in 1946, 2002 and 2012, but the legislation before us will restate our priorities. It has been clearly welcomed by the House in general. I look forward to engaging with the committee on the amendments.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 1 has been ruled out of order. I should not really allow Deputy Berry to comment on an amendment that has been ruled out of order but I understand he is anxious to say a word about it.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. I understand a detailed explanation was emailed to him before the meeting.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have been told the Pre-Hospital Emergency Care Council, that is, the regulator for pre-hospital clinicians such as emergency medical technicians, EMTs, and general and advanced paramedics, requires that paramedics be privileged by each organisation for which they work or volunteer. If, therefore, an advanced paramedic who works full time for the National Ambulance Service wants also to volunteer for Civil Defence, he or she must be privileged separately by each organisation to work at the level of advanced paramedic. Part of achieving this privilege is being able to access medications that are within the relevant scope of practice. Some of these medications, such as morphine, fall under controlled drugs legislation. Each organisation typically stores these medications. Clinicians do not take them home and they are not issued for personal use. In order for an organisation such as a Civil Defence unit to store these controlled medications, it must acquire a licence and meet requirements under the legislation. Part of this requirement is to have a responsible officer, namely, the Civil Defence officer, an assistant Civil Defence officer or a Civil Defence unit. It is the responsibility of each local authority, I am told, to organise this for its respective Civil Defence unit. To date, just half of the Civil Defence units have submitted licence applications. The Civil Defence officers' association has concerns about some of the requirements, mainly relating to the role of responsible officers, and has raised these concerns with Fórsa. I am told some units have applied for a licence and that locally there is no issue, but that Civil Defence will not allow authorisation on a unit-by-unit basis. It is all or nothing. I am told this has been going on for three years and there is no sign of it progressing.

Civil Defence volunteers who are registered with the Pre-Hospital Emergency Care Council at the clinical level of general or advanced paramedic, particularly those who work full time for the National Ambulance Service, have informally withdrawn from training or attending medical units in some Civil Defence units due to an issue with privilege that has been ongoing since the summer of 2020. Naturally, these are some of the more experienced volunteers, who are usually in instructor or leadership-type roles. Their absence at training and active duties is felt by the rest of the volunteers. Some medical duties require the presence of general or advanced paramedics under health and safety guidance for event organisers, which means Civil Defence risks losing long-standing duties it covers annually or may have to request support from other organisations such as St. John Ambulance, the Order of Malta or the Red Cross, given this issue is unique to Civil Defence.

In summary, due to a privileging issue, Civil Defence does not stock the correct medications to allow general or advanced paramedics to deliver care to their scope of practice. Civil Defence will allow these clinicians to practise only to the level of EMT, a lesser capability, and I received a response to a parliamentary question last week that confirmed that. As a result, these clinicians feel they may be at risk of not fulfilling their duty of care to a patient under their professional registration and, therefore, put their jobs as full-time general or advanced paramedics with the National Ambulance Service at risk. This is extremely serious for them and has led to many having withdrawn their services as an instructor for training or as a volunteer at medical duties.

This is a serious issue. I am raising it now because, while I was going to try to prepare an amendment, it is difficult to prepare an amendment for this. I will re-examine the matter on Report Stage but I would like the Minister of State to respond now and tell me what he thinks of this provision being included as part of the section. Doing so means we will be at risk of losing very experienced people, who are putting their careers at risk because they cannot practise to the level of professionalism they have reached, and their duty of care to patients will be breached.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for his detailed analysis in respect of the Pre-Hospital Emergency Care Council and the new guidelines on foot of same. This relates to Department of Health legislation. I understand from my officials that it is an operational matter that has been under discussion with the local authorities and the unions in respect of civil defence for the past year. We have not yet been asked to respond to it but we believe the response is on the side of the Department of Health, which has regulatory responsibility for the Pre-Hospital Emergency Care Council.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State. This is a serious matter, of great concern to highly qualified people. For three years, a general paramedic and an advanced paramedic have been trying to volunteer to cover events in their local communities and mentor the next generation of volunteers in their training and qualifications but are being held up by the issues relating to the Civil Defence officers’ association and the local authorities in regard to managing the controlled drugs licence.

Surely after three years of talks, the situation requires some input from stakeholders, such as the Department of Defence or the Minister for Defence, to get it sorted.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would it be helpful for the Deputy if the Minister of State were to get a more detailed note from the Department of Health regarding that relationship?

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is having a significant impact on members of Civil Defence, who are highly qualified, and they are very worried about it. We are discussing the Civil Defence Bill, which is why I raised it here. I may bring forward an amendment on the issue on Report Stage unless the Minister of State has a response for me by then, whether from himself or his colleagues. This issue has been going on for three years and cannot be allowed to continue for much longer.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is likely Report Stage will not be taken for four or five weeks, so the Minister of State might get some clarification or perhaps communicate directly with the Deputy.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely, and I will speak to the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence about it as well. I had not been aware the issue was ongoing.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Deputy okay with that response?

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine. I thank the Minister of State.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will revert to the Deputy.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, related and may be discussed together.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, line 25, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

These amendments are technical in nature and reflect the changed name of the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, line 32, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 10, line 35, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 5 has been ruled out of order. The reasons have been disclosed to Deputy Berry.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As in the case of the earlier amendments tabled by Deputy Berry and others, amendment No. 6 has been ruled out of order.